As I recall, IBM didn't contract MS to write OS/2: it was supposed to be a joint development project. However, IBM marketed their extended edition (EE) version which had the database and comm built in, whereas MS marketed the SE version, so you could choose your own database and comm apps. Thus it would be fair to say the the IBM version was a lot more proprietary than the MS version.
Back then the IBM PC division was trying to sell PCs, and the IBM software division trying to sell an operating system. The PC people weren't excited about loading OS/2 because demand wasn't high, but on the other hand they were shafted by MS for offerring it at all. Other PC companies decided it wasn't worth the grief, and just loaded windows.
I had one of the really early Commodore 64's, but it got fried when I was using it during a thunderstorm. I sent it to Commodore for repairs, but they sent me a new one with a much higher SN.
I don't think that OS/2 was unsuccessful because of FUD. Rather, I think the problem was the deal that OEMs had to load windows on all their machines. They were all afraid to load OS/2 as an option. Right now they feel that MS doesn't have the stroke it had because of the DOJ, so Linux is getting loaded as an option.
I pretty much agree... I read this book as an amateur, and as such, I had a good time. It seems like current models are closer than they were 10 years ago, but it might be another 10, or 50 years until reasonably good understanding of the process is achieved.
Slashdot Mirror
As I recall, IBM didn't contract MS to write OS/2: it was supposed to be a joint development project. However, IBM marketed their extended edition (EE) version which had the database and comm built in, whereas MS marketed the SE version, so you could choose your own database and comm apps. Thus it would be fair to say the the IBM version was a lot more proprietary than the MS version.
Back then the IBM PC division was trying to sell PCs, and the IBM software division trying to sell an operating system. The PC people weren't excited about loading OS/2 because demand wasn't high, but on the other hand they were shafted by MS for offerring it at all. Other PC companies decided it wasn't worth the grief, and just loaded windows.
I had one of the really early Commodore 64's, but it got fried when I was using it during a thunderstorm. I sent it to Commodore for repairs, but they sent me a new one with a much higher SN.
I don't think that OS/2 was unsuccessful because of FUD. Rather, I think the problem was the deal that OEMs had to load windows on all their machines. They were all afraid to load OS/2 as an option. Right now they feel that MS doesn't have the stroke it had because of the DOJ, so Linux is getting loaded as an option.
I pretty much agree... I read this book as an amateur, and as such, I had a good time. It seems like current models are closer than they were 10 years ago, but it might be another 10, or 50 years until reasonably good understanding of the process is achieved.